Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 120: A Nationally Lampooned Vacation

(+) Yeah! (+)

You can't claim I have a history of calling people liars if I call you a liar when you do *finger pointing at forehead*
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Corrik, it has nothing to do with you being Conservative, and everything to do with you calling all who oppose you "liars". You regulay claim any anecdotal story is made up, call all opposing evidence false, and whenever proven wrong definitively you just respond with "nope".

You are not someone who can be properly conversed with.

I am pretty sure I have courteously conversed with everyone in these topics ever since even as far back as the primaries.

I do not appreciate spinning things I say into what wasn't said. Saying if someone is saying this, they are lying is not calling everyone who disagrees with me "liars". That never has happened.

I have consistently stated my beliefs as they are in which is a moderare consertive mindset. I am a nationalist conservative that borders on a neocon.

I am not religious. I am not adamant about abortion though I would side with pro-life if forced. I am not big on guns at all, but do believe people should have the right to have them if they wish within reason. I do agree with protecting us business and giving them means to compete with foreign countries.

I am against getting involved with countries and sending them tons of aid where it provides no benefit to us. I believe threats to our nation should be willing to be dealt with with force.

I do believe a persons sex is what they are born and they can choose what they wish to do with their lives sexually or with their appearance but that it does not change their actual sex or gender.

I believe the justice system should be obeyed, respected, and accepted as the laws of society as long as they are there.

I believe welfare systems need to be extremely cutback to provide paths to work and not to provide lifestyles in which a person is capable of not taking that path.

I have pretty staunch conservative opinions in many cases and just because I do does not make me a troll or an idiot. It means my opinions differ froms yours.

I respect your opinions though I disagree with them many times.

It is the nature of a liberal centered topic and me being an outsider from the main ideology. I can have these same conversations at work or at a bar and basically everyone agree with what I say. That is because I live in a Conservative / republocrat area. And, many here would think your opinions are dumb.

Nature of the beast.
---

That sure was a lot of words that are totally worthless because everyone here has seen you post.

Like, if you were defending yourself to a third party, that would have been a pretty convincing waste of time! Certainly better than Vlado has managed.
---

Corrik posted...

I do believe a persons sex is what they are born and they can choose what they wish to do with their lives sexually or with their appearance but that it does not change their actual sex or gender.

This is probably where you'll get the most pushback on your list, but regardless of how you feel about the reality of being transgender, what is your stance on legislation meant to target them such as bathroom bills?

I can agree to live and let live here as long as you aren't advocating government intervention
against trans people
---

Corrik posted...

I believe the justice system should be obeyed, respected, and accepted as the laws of society as long as they are there.

so not to go back to this but if a guy who legally murdered 4 kids and a guy who illegally cured cancer were hanging off a cliff, who would you save?
---

McCain on Trump's threat to North Korea:

"The great leaders I've seen don't threaten unless they're ready to act and I'm not sure President Trump is ready to act."

I'm not sure what he means by that.
---

that president trump isn't a great leader, probably.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

I do believe a persons sex is what they are born and they can choose what they wish to do with their lives sexually or with their appearance but that it does not change their actual sex or gender.

This is probably where you'll get the most pushback on your list, but regardless of how you feel about the reality of being transgender, what is your stance on legislation meant to target them such as bathroom bills?

I can agree to live and let live here as long as you aren't advocating government intervention
against trans people

I would say a person should rightfuly use the bathroom that their born sex indicates. However, if the area is in a majority of allowing cross use then I do not see the issue with it as anything a transgender person could do out of line is just as out of line as if someone of the same sex as the bathroom designated could do as well.

I do not believe a born boy should be able to compete with girls or vice versa, and I feel a trans person should accept that consequence as the nature of the decision of their choice.

It gets a bit tricky nowadays with just how far people actually go now with such transformations. But, generally that's what I believe.
---

Kenri posted...

so not to go back to this but if a guy who legally murdered 4 kids and a guy who illegally cured cancer were hanging off a cliff, who would you save?

The problem with such hypothetical is that it misses the entire point.

The answer shouldn't be to choose between two people, regardless of their moral actions. The answer should be: Both of them, if possible.
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

I believe the justice system should be obeyed, respected, and accepted as the laws of society as long as they are there.

so not to go back to this but if a guy who legally murdered 4 kids and a guy who illegally cured cancer were hanging off a cliff, who would you save?

It is not an even possibly viable hypothetical. If a man legally murdered 4 armed kids in self defense protecting his wife and children from them attacking his home and family, I would definitely not look down at him and possibly would admire him tbqh.

But there is never a scenario where the cancer hypothetical is possible. Like, what would it be? Illegally tested on humans and killed a bunch to perfect the cure?
---

Ashethan posted...

The answer shouldn't be to choose between two people, regardless of their moral actions. The answer should be: Both of them, if possible.

true. i'm pretty okay with dropping kiddy killer if i have perfect knowledge of their guilt, though, gotta say

but the hypothetical was originally corrik's (obviously with the legality reversed) and specified you can only save one
---

Corrik posted...

But there is never a scenario where the cancer hypothetical is possible. Like, what would it be? Illegally tested on humans and killed a bunch to perfect the cure?

Nah we just decided it was illegal. President Fucksickfolk signed an executive order or something, who knows.

You realize laws are made by humans, right

also the kids were all innocent. it was just legal to kill them in our society for some reason. probably an executive order from president fuckkids.
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

But there is never a scenario where the cancer hypothetical is possible. Like, what would it be? Illegally tested on humans and killed a bunch to perfect the cure?

Nah we just decided it was illegal. President Fucksickfolk signed an executive order or something, who knows.

You realize laws are made by humans, right

also the kids were all innocent. it was just legal to kill them in our society for some reason. probably an executive order from president fuckkids.

Would never happen so until you can make a viable hypothetical, I cannot answer.
---

Your contribution to thought experiments is truly out of this world
---

Corrik posted...

Would never happen so until you can make a viable hypothetical, I cannot answer.

We gave you slavery already and you refused to answer that one too so probably you're just a coward with no moral fiber of your own.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Corrik posted...

when people challenged your opinions, you called them "liars" several times. that probably didn't generate much goodwill towards you.

Never happened

LOL

Gentlemen

Read this post, then remember the discussion we had with this guy on healthcare a few weeks ago where he literally called every counterpoint to what he was saying a lie.

Then ask yourself why the fuck you're bothering with Corrik.
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

Would never happen so until you can make a viable hypothetical, I cannot answer.

We gave you slavery already and you refused to answer that one too so probably you're just a coward with no moral fiber of your own.

We already had that discussion previously.
---

Also we want to go the legality route:

It's 1850.

Two men are hanging from a cliff. One is a slave owner. The other is a man who illegally helped free slaves. Who do you save?
---

Reg posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Corrik posted...

when people challenged your opinions, you called them "liars" several times. that probably didn't generate much goodwill towards you.

Never happened

LOL

Gentlemen

Read this post, then remember the discussion we had with this guy on healthcare a few weeks ago where he literally called every counterpoint to what he was saying a lie.

Then ask yourself why the fuck you're bothering with Corrik.

Sure. Post the posts. Because it has not happened. Almost everything I have been accused of saying and lambasted by others, if you look at my actual posts, has never actually been said.

There is a select few who take my comments. Spin them to what they think I such a troll would say. Repeatedly say I said such things. I say I never said that. And then people just go off what they said I said instead of actually reading what I said.

You can gladly take whatever time you need to produce such posts because I assure you this is like the 30th time this supposed he said nonsense has come up and NEVER has a single post been produced to show I said what was said.

Hell, Skyridge tried really hard to do this and at least produced a quote. The quote did not actually say what he was trying to say it said, but at least he provided a post to try and continue his flawed point.
---

Ashethan posted...

Also we want to go the legality route:

It's 1850.

Two men are hanging from a cliff. One is a slave owner. The other is a man who illegally helped free slaves. Who do you save?

Is that literally all I know about them?
---

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Also we want to go the legality route:

It's 1850.

Two men are hanging from a cliff. One is a slave owner. The other is a man who illegally helped free slaves. Who do you save?

Is that literally all I know about them?

You may ask each one question, but here's the catch:

One always lies and one always tells the truth. BUT you don't know which one is which.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Also we want to go the legality route:

It's 1850.

Two men are hanging from a cliff. One is a slave owner. The other is a man who illegally helped free slaves. Who do you save?

Is that literally all I know about them?

You may ask each one question, but here's the catch:

One always lies and one always tells the truth. BUT you don't know which one is which.

Well, if all I knew about them was that, it very likely depends on which State I was raised and lived in. And, that is why the Civil War in many ways happened.
---

Corrik posted...

Sure. Post the posts. Because it has not happened. Almost everything I have been accused of saying and lambasted by others, if you look at my actual posts, has never actually been said.

You actually did accuse... I think either Jakyl or Tony of lying for posting a list of jobs that they said they had and didn't offer health insurance. You said they were either lying or got paid under the table.

Granted, that's the only one I specifically remember, so saying you do it all the time isn't really fair, but. It did happen atleast once.
---

No, I think in this hypothetical, you're you. You got a time machine, and somehow ran across these two people.

One who did something legal but unethical, and the other who did something illegal but ethical. What is more important?
---

Corrik posted...

it very likely depends on which State I was raised and lived in.

Kenri posted...

coward with no moral fiber

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Also we want to go the legality route:

It's 1850.

Two men are hanging from a cliff. One is a slave owner. The other is a man who illegally helped free slaves. Who do you save?

Is that literally all I know about them?

You may ask each one question, but here's the catch:

One always lies and one always tells the truth. BUT you don't know which one is which.

Ooh, ooh! I know this one!
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

Sure. Post the posts. Because it has not happened. Almost everything I have been accused of saying and lambasted by others, if you look at my actual posts, has never actually been said.

You actually did accuse... I think either Jakyl or Tony of lying for posting a list of jobs that they said they had and didn't offer health insurance. You said they were either lying or got paid under the table.

Granted, that's the only one I specifically remember, so saying you do it all the time isn't really fair, but. It did happen atleast once.

Produce the post because I am 100% sure you are wrong. Someone else said I was saying everyone else was lying based on my experience.

What I said was that the jobs were under the table or small business most likely. And, I said if the guy who is saying he was a kmary manager is saying that full time kmart employees do not get insurance then he was lying. He admitted full time did and said he was referring to employees in general. Which I acknowledged in my initial post that many companies try to limit you to like 1 hour below full time precisely for the reason to not give you coverage.
---

Is there any give up statement worse than refusing to answer a hypothetical?
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Is there any give up statement worse than refusing to answer a hypothetical?

Anyone who has ever committed an act that i deem to be immoral should die.
---

Yeah but that's not giving up, that's dangerous false determination.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

No, I think in this hypothetical, you're you. You got a time machine, and somehow ran across these two people.

One who did something legal but unethical, and the other who did something illegal but ethical. What is more important?

The answer is the man who freed slaves. But, I am working from a 2017 mindset.

If I was raised in Tennesee. My family and my entire state depended on slavery, it was ingrained as right, and completely and utterly legal as well, I would save the slave owner knowing nothing else regarding the situation.

You change laws through the government. Not by vigilanteeism and taking it into your own hands. One is a criminal and one is not - and by any means necessarily even a bad person. Good people were slave owners as well. Not only evil. While bad people were abolitionists as well. Not only pure.

It is very important to realize many of this is gray and not black and white.

Was slavery wrong. Absolutely. Not debatable.

Was the people bad who partook in it? Not necessarily.

Were abolitionists good because they wanted it ended? Not necessarily.

How many abolitionists compared African Americans to monkeys and said that they should be deported back to Africa upon release from slavery? The answer is at least some. Were they much better? I dunno.

From a 2017 mindset I save the Abolitionist. From a 1850 mindset, I probably side with the Slave Owner, but it could vary based on where I was raised.

I would definitely have felt that person did not have the right to take that into his own hands. But, I am that way always. If something goes wrong, the police should handle it. They are the law, I am not. That's always been my mindset.

If the state rules to allow illegal immigrants in and vote. I disagree with it and will vote how I think my vote will best show that, but the law can settle that. Not my place.
---

Corrik posted...

You change laws through the government. Not by vigilanteeism and taking it into your own hands

this is among the most un-American arguments you could possibly make
---

Your posts don't need to be that long, Corrik.

"Being a terrible person is OK if it's how you were raised."

There, easy.
---

Man, remember when the founding fathers obeyed Britain's laws and paid their undue taxes and simply lobbied to have them changed and be made into our own independent country?
---

Your view of who is a terrible person is greatly influenced by where and how you were raised.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik posted...

You change laws through the government. Not by vigilanteeism and taking it into your own hands

this is among the most un-American arguments you could possibly make

Perhaps it is. I am a support your country and trust it will end up in the right place type of person. Not a go protest and riot if I feel something isn't the way I feel it should be. How I am.
---

King George III did nothing wrong.
---

FFDragon posted...

King George III did nothing wrong.

America had no government. And no representation to enact change.
---

Hey, where does Dennis Rodman currently live? That's probably the safest place to be right now.
---

Corrik posted...

FFDragon posted...

King George III did nothing wrong.

America had no government. And no representation to enact change.

Yes, but that wasn't really George's fault. Parliament already had most of the power by then (Also, he was starting to lose his mind, but that's beside the point). In fact, George's efforts in getting I believe the Stamp Tax repealed actually got him a statue in NYC back in the 1760's. The one thing we can really hold him responsible for in the leadup to the war itself was his rejection of the Olive Branch Petition, but more of the blame there lies with John Adams for sabotaging it.

That said, he made an excellent figurehead.
---

https://iowastartingline.com/2017/08/08/iowa-democrats-win-special-election-in-trump-22-district/
---

Rollin' rollin' rollin'
---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://iowastartingline.com/2017/08/08/iowa-democrats-win-special-election-in-trump-22-district/

Y'know, I don't think I've gotten tired of winning just yet.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

https://iowastartingline.com/2017/08/08/iowa-democrats-win-special-election-in-trump-22-district/

Y'know, I don't think I've gotten tired of winning just yet.

TO BE FAIR...

This election was for a seat the democrats previously held, so it isn't like they're gaining any ground. Also Obama beat Romney here so this is a district that should be in play for Dems regardless.

Trump was just the odd result, it looks like.
---

Corrik posted...

I would definitely have felt that person did not have the right to take that into his own hands. But, I am that way always. If something goes wrong, the police should handle it. They are the law, I am not. That's always been my mindset.

This is a pretty pure definition of privilege
---

Here's another fun hypothetical for Corrik

Would the slaves have been right to rebel against their owners, to the point of violence if necessary?

Or should they have just waited for government to sort it out?
---

FFDragon posted...

King George III did nothing wrong.

He really didn't.

The American Revolution rests on a lot of lies and propaganda that arent strictly true.
---

https://twitter.com/cgrunyon/status/895144097945493504

LOL Hannity
---

And yes that is Mitch McConnell he's lashing out at
---

Not surprising. I'm fairly certain you could be almost as successful playing Hannity criticizes Hannity with his old clips as you could with Trump and his tweets.
---